M. Jones, I'm interested in if you have a philosophical basis for your belief in the right to bear any-and-all arms beyond just a literal textual analysis of the second amendment.

The constitution merely enumerates an existing natural right. It's utterly shameful that Americans need to cite the text of the amendment and argue its semantics because their politicians and judges otherwise often refuse to recognise that right.

Anyways, the pro-gun community such as the NRA and their ilk have no problem flat out lying about legislation. See all the "it will lead to a registry" that they even get moronic senators to say on the floor.

Several posters here have explained why the suggested gun-control measures could easily create de facto registries, if not de jure, perhaps depending on details. Details which are often devolved to regulatory agencies like BATFE.

Frankly, I don't see how we can reliably catch traffickers without a database. We essentially throw away queryable purchase attempts after 72 hours. Then it's a clean slate.

No, NICS doesn't discard denials. They're kept for 20 years, as I cited earlier in the thread. They can and have been used as the basis for indictments and convictions, although the justice system chooses to do so only on rare occasions.

Quote:

All I can figure is gun owners don't want to have to account for where their weapons are.

When the consequence is being jailed for mala prohibita, I'm not at all interested in having the burden of proof shifted to myself -- correct.

Governments in the States spend 38.9% of GDP, so they have the resources to do their job without making half of the country's residents guilty until proven innocent.

Anyways, the pro-gun community such as the NRA and their ilk POLITICIANS have no problem flat out lying about legislation. See all the "it will lead to a registry" that they even get moronic senators to say on the floor.

M. Jones, I'm interested in if you have a philosophical basis for your belief in the right to bear any-and-all arms beyond just a literal textual analysis of the second amendment.

The constitution merely enumerates an existing natural right. It's utterly shameful that Americans need to cite the text of the amendment and argue its semantics because their politicians and judges otherwise often refuse to recognise that right.

To clarify, is that natural right a right to self-defense? I'm not sure a right to any-and-all arms follows from that.

Frankly, I think enacting a law should require either two elections* with super-majorities of votes (roughly 5/8ths) in two separate congressional terms separated by at least 2 years, or an even greater majority of votes (say, 3/4ths) in one election. Repealing a law should be a separate, more lax process, say requiring a simple majority vote in one election. The law should be general, slow-moving, and not influenced by fleeting emotions. People should have the opportunity to vote out congresspeople in response to their vote on a bill to prevent the bill from passing in the subsequent session. But the US is so divided that nothing would ever get done that way.

* Meaning the process of everyone voting on a bill; not sure what the right word is.

The constitution merely enumerates an existing natural right. It's utterly shameful that Americans need to cite the text of the amendment and argue its semantics because their politicians and judges otherwise often refuse to recognise that right.

To clarify, is that natural right a right to self-defense? I'm not sure a right to any-and-all arms follows from that.

No, the right doesn't derive from self defense.

However, I'm personally willing to entertain the notion of bans on arms that have no defensive use. Chemical and nuclear weapons have demonstrated defensive uses. Biological weapons currently seem to have no defensive uses, but I'd be reluctant to conclude that defensive biological weapons could never exist.

The constitution merely enumerates an existing natural right. It's utterly shameful that Americans need to cite the text of the amendment and argue its semantics because their politicians and judges otherwise often refuse to recognise that right.

To clarify, is that natural right a right to self-defense? I'm not sure a right to any-and-all arms follows from that.

No, the right doesn't derive from self defense.

However, I'm personally willing to entertain the notion of bans on arms that have no defensive use. Chemical and nuclear weapons have demonstrated defensive uses. Biological weapons currently seem to have no defensive uses, but I'd be reluctant to conclude that defensive biological weapons could never exist.

Look, anyone who has read snow crash can come up with the very simple reason why nuclear ownership is a bad idea. All it really takes is one irrational actor to take down the rational(?) actor walking around with a nuke on a deadman switch. Suddenly you have everyone in range affected by your need to have such a silly WMD in the first place.

I mean seriously, like all rights, you gotta set some fucking limits. No right should be unlimited.

What prior limits need to be set on speech?

Not consequences (e.g., libel lawsuits), but limits. You can't spend more than five thousand U.S. on speech in a year, lest you exercise disproportionate political influence? Unless you're a media organization, of course; everyone tacitly assumes different rules apply to incumbent media organizations.

Last evening MSNBC ran a crawl berating U.S. Senators for 'cowardice' on the gun control bill(s). My local NPR affiliate barely has enough time to cover other topics amongst the omnipresent gun-control agitprop. Nevertheless, I'm not advocating that their freedom of expression be limited by government coercion.

I mean seriously, like all rights, you gotta set some fucking limits. No right should be unlimited.

What prior limits need to be set on speech?

Not consequences (e.g., libel lawsuits), but limits.

Well, if you are going to redefine limits by only referring to consequences, then I agree, you can own nukes, as long as you don't mind the .gov placing a .45 caliber asprin in the back of your head as a consequence.

The constitution merely enumerates an existing natural right. It's utterly shameful that Americans need to cite the text of the amendment and argue its semantics because their politicians and judges otherwise often refuse to recognise that right.

To clarify, is that natural right a right to self-defense? I'm not sure a right to any-and-all arms follows from that.

No, the right doesn't derive from self defense.

Is the upshot of this that there's a natural right to own absolutely anything?

That seems dangerously close to a regulatory analog of "taxation is theft".

Is the upshot of this that there's a natural right to own absolutely anything?

The alternative is saying that it's justified to use force on individuals for no reason other than their possession of physical objects, a repugnant recourse.

We already reject the use of force as a response to the possession of almost any data. There's no right to the possession of stolen data and no right to violate contract with (civil) impunity, but we don't require prior government permission to speak or send data because of the possibility that we might violate someone's limited monopoly.

Is the upshot of this that there's a natural right to own absolutely anything?

The alternative is saying that it's justified to use force on individuals for no reason other than their possession of physical objects, a repugnant recourse.

We already reject the use of force as a response to the possession of almost any data. There's no right to the possession of stolen data and no right to violate contract with (civil) impunity, but we don't require prior government permission to speak or send data because of the possibility that we might violate someone's limited monopoly.

Whut?

Jones, you rarely make sense as it is, but normally some content can be sussed out from either the ranty diatribe, or the ultra-brief insider-reference-laden quips you post.

Is the upshot of this that there's a natural right to own absolutely anything?

The alternative is saying that it's justified to use force on individuals for no reason other than their possession of physical objects, a repugnant recourse.

We already reject the use of force as a response to the possession of almost any data. There's no right to the possession of stolen data and no right to violate contract with (civil) impunity, but we don't require prior government permission to speak or send data because of the possibility that we might violate someone's limited monopoly.

Whut?

Jones, you rarely make sense as it is, but normally some content can be sussed out from either the ranty diatribe, or the ultra-brief insider-reference-laden quips you post.

This, well, this doesn't make any sense at all.

Can you translate it into something a bit more... lucid?

To understand it you need to have been exposed to the libertarian cool-aid. All taxation is theft, regulation is confiscation, fiat money is fraud, and so on. If you really want to go down the whole tedious rabbit hole you can hang out at mises.org for a while.

We have see the tragedy of the Boston marathon massacre. It is time to ban pressure cookers. These are devices that are just waiting to kill and we do nothing to control them. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04 ... -for-yearsWe need laws to register anyone who owns them and to start getting these off the street. The ones that are allowed to be owned by civilians have to be changed to that they are safe. We need waiting periods before someone can buy a pressure cooker. Dammit think of that little boy!

Again, if we're just going to post hyperbolic caricatures and strawmen of the opposing side, there's not really any point to keeping the thread open. All it does is lead to hurt feelings, not discourse.

The constitution merely enumerates an existing natural right. It's utterly shameful that Americans need to cite the text of the amendment and argue its semantics because their politicians and judges otherwise often refuse to recognise that right.

To clarify, is that natural right a right to self-defense? I'm not sure a right to any-and-all arms follows from that.

No, the right doesn't derive from self defense.

However, I'm personally willing to entertain the notion of bans on arms that have no defensive use. Chemical and nuclear weapons have demonstrated defensive uses. Biological weapons currently seem to have no defensive uses, but I'd be reluctant to conclude that defensive biological weapons could never exist.

I don't think chemical or nuclear weapons have legitimate use in the context of self-defense. That right doesn't give me the option of making calculated decisions about acceptable collateral damage. If I injure anyone other than my attacker(s), I've violated that person's rights. There's no practical scenario where I could defend myself with a chemical or nuclear weapon in a responsible manner. The basic due diligence to make sure no one else is in the area and analyze weather patterns and ground water distribution and so forth would take days - at which point the threat has passed or authorities have arrived.